NRA wants to join lawsuit on delisting

NRA members tell phantasmagorical story to try to gain standing-

If this really happened, most people would regard it as the highlight their trip, not the basis of a lawsuit. Three blood dripping wolf packs, driven off by snowballs! They should be denied standing to intervene.

Share this:

Like this:

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

75 Responses to NRA wants to join lawsuit on delisting

I’m glad to see that the responses so far have been to deny standing. Can’t imagine what they would be like if this was the Billings or Cody paper!
Too bad there wasn’t anyone out there to throw snow balls at these guys who were out there, guess what?, trying to kill an elk!!
BTW, does anyone have a total figure of the number of wolves that have been killed since reintroduction? I’m getting real tired of people telling me how wolf populations have been growing “unchecked”.

“In a move that could have had dire consequences, the guide and I decided to try and save the calf by throwing snow balls at the wolves,” Pirozzi said. “We managed to hit the wolves a few times and they retreated back to where some of the other wolves were waiting below.”

Snowballs? What typical bullshit. Instead of just sitting there and watching nature takes its course, these guys have to play god and try to “save” poor Bambi. The self importance of some people amazes me.

Amazing the stories people try to tell about wolves. I know I have mentioned this before, but it reminds me of the coworker who told me that there was a wolf attack in Yellowstone and the camper was able to shoot them because he had a permit to carry a gun in a national park. Or a post someone wrote on here about an elk that had its back legs eaten off by a wolf and that it died in her backyard.

The NRA is the most hypocritical organization in the country. They talk about conservation yet they have and still support the most avid anti-conservationist in congress. They are nothing but a bunch of gun-nuts IMHO.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear snowballs, shall not be infringed.” Thankfully, a wolf crime was thwarted because onlookers were armed! Things could have turned out tragically different, but thanks to the NRA, wet mittens were the only result. When snowballs are outlawed, only outlaws will have snowballs!

Alright let’s try this again, sorry hating typing, mind works faster then fingers, anyway so nature is doing it’s thing get over it , if true with 30 wolves hell of alot of wolves in one area, snowballs and all . One pack or three who knows . Maybe a pack like I think it was the Druids in Yellowstone with about 27 at one point, could be .

NRA doesn’t have standing under Scalia’s test, so we will see what Malloy says. If he lets them in…could be a silver lining in other cases when the small enviro groups want standing.

I agree with Save Bears. NRA just smells more opps for power here, playing up fear and anxiety where there is no rational basis for it. I am just amazed at the sheer number of lies the conservative, radical right puts out about Obama, guns, etc. And the members eat it up. Amazing how lemming like the human species is.

The NRA gives the impression that society would go to hell without guns and that they have to have them to keep their man-hood. I have had people on Cape Cod, MA use the same BS with coywolves I study. Some folks (obviously not all hunters) make it seem like they can’t leave their house for fear of these “pests” yet I have had middle school students in the past check traps that have coywolves in them (and others around them).
Their stupidity is what eventually will (in my strongest hopes) lead to the National Canid Conservation Act, similar to the Raptor/Migratory Bird Protection Act.http://easterncoyoteresearch.com/NationalCanidProtectionAct.html

thanks gline,
I am not an anti-hunter but I also find it amazing that Mike Vick can go to jail for 2 years and people for the most part can legally do what he did to wild canids – some coyotes, 365 days a year in 42 of 49 states. It just doesn’t make sense esp. given the known ecological importance of canids to ecosystem health.

Check out Camilla Fox’s Cull of the Wild for recent stats.
They aren’t protected in the other 7 states it is just that there is some regulation beyond all year, unlimited numbers.
MA and NY allow roughly 6 months unlimited in each state; I think New Jersey and Indiana have some regulations. CT doesn’t allow for 1 month in the spring, I assume for turkey hunting. And so there are a couple more I don’t know off the top of my head.
Maybe one day state fish and wildlife agencies will get out of the 1800s with some of their mgmt strategies. As a biologist I absolutely hate hearing that they can sustain that type of kill. It is unneeded, unwise, not effective, and inhumane all to appeal to a minority of people….

Thanks. I would love to see some protection for coyotes- they are probably one of the most under-appreciated mammals in the US. I can hear three packs most nights from my bedroom window and I see the local pack on a frequent basis. As I have mentioned in other posts, it incenses me that these beautiful and useful animals can simply cross a ridge to the south of me and be shot for “fun.”

The NRA is classic example of an organization that won, but had such a large organization is couldn’t disband. Students of politics used to use the March of Dimes as an example. The March of Dimo began as an organization to find a cure for polio, but when a cure was found they didn’t disband, with their large organization they went on get a new cause, fighting birth defects.

But that example is old. The NRA is much more current. They have changed their goals several times since they organized about a hundred years ago.

Most recently they flat out won in getting the Supreme Court to change its position on the 2nd Amendment — that it actually meant people had the right to personally bear arms. This could have been a reason to celebrate and disband, but that would been firing thousands of people and disbanding a politically effective organization.

Instead they invented the idea that gun rights are not secure at all, but horribly threatened. Obama wants to take people’s guns away despite what Constitution says and the Supreme Court, and he might even be building prisons for guns owners. This is outrageous (and well planned) paranoia, and it worked. The NRA is fat with money and activity, and a growing organization, and dangerous one now, because what comes next now that lots of people are armed and frightened?

The level of outright lies and fear-mongering they purport are criminal IMHO. I believe they should be debunked and disbanded now before they create more unraveling of the fragile social fabric that now barely holds this nation together.

I wonder why nobody has called them a social terrorist organization… yet.

Doesn’t the NRA always get vocal at the beginning of a Democratic organization? I remember them being vocal at the beginning of the Clinton Administration but then seemed to taper off. They were pretty quiet during the Bush Administration.

I have to say, this kind of sensationalism is parralel to what celebrities endure at the hands of The Globe and Enquirer. That is just my humble opinion. Snowballs, alien babies, and 85 year olds giving birth, etc….wow.

I suppose it might be feasible, since rocks have been suggested to deter wolves from approaching humans to beg for food, or come into close proximety to people.

BUt come on! I am so tired of hearing how wolves are bad for eating! How many of these dorks don’t still smell like the steak or Big Mac they ate for dinner? Maybe we should all start stoning ar pelting people who eat meat with snowballs? Then when we are all vegatarians, we can throw them at all the lettuce eaters!

The NRA did once paly a key role in many things political, some would say they still do. They are by and large hard core Republicans. They are an extension of their members’ political roots, banded together to combat their oposition. Sadly, the once great establishment is now on a path to do the bidding of republicans who opose all things liberal. They have lost the part of their vision that was meant to protect the public’s rights as a whole. They are serving a small population of very loud people.

This is nothing new though, these type of attitudes serve a purpose. They provoke change (and occasionally it is a good thing), but eventually -as Ralph mentioned-they become a different entity than what their origins inspired.
It is of the utmost importance that we keep in mind, a few loud people can do more than a whole lot of quiet people.

THe NRA has historically been able to recruit new members very effectively. They are an ever present threat by extension. I would guess (just a guess) that many of their members are cattlemen, and Bush-like-thinkers. THey have political clout and monetary power. They can be a formidable adversary.

Perhaps we need to see conservation more like a corporate venture. Work from the inside out. Buy up small amounts of stock quietly, then yield our interest to make a corporate coup. For instance, why not buy membership in the NRA? They are governed directly by member votes, are they not??? A silent inside move could bring their house of cards tumbling down.

When Kerry ran against Bush he scored a 0 with the NRA despite having hunted before while Bush really hadn’t. While Kerry might have stretched the truth about his hunting heritage (or lack of) he at least had and he got a 0 b.c he was for banning assault weapons. Way to go NRA.

It seems to me that they (the NRA admin folks) are efficient in exploiting a basic ignorance of the general public by way of playing on their fears based on lack of knowledge. They do this with misinformation and paternalistic self-appointed (non)authority.

It is also one of the most successful ad agencies for the military industrial complex by assuring everyone that guns are the only form of safety and security while publicly claiming that its all related to hunting rights which they claim are in jeopardy .

I don’t see so much fear-mongering in England or other countries where gun-toting is not allowed. Here we have fools with guns in the park and promote killing as a god-given right and the only real form of protection against all our fears.

I live in an almost evenly divided community where half of the residents were worried that Obama would take their guns away the day after election day. Many expressed this fear to me that day. I told them what a crock of poo that train of thought was and challenged them to explain how such an action would take place. They couldn’t come up with anything that made any sense.

I really think we should ban all lobbying in Washington, I know it is a right, but has gotten out of hand on both sides. Our federal governmemnt is controlled by the people who have the most money to lobby. It is really hard for our officals to govern,again too many special interest on both sides. But organizations like the NRA do the most harm in my opinion.

501c3’s are a cancer to our society and I hope one day they will be eliminated from our political culture.

Almost every single on of these organizations uses misinformation, and propaganda, to further their cause. The NRA, does it, Brady Campaign does it, and so does Defenders of Wildlife.

But back to the NRA, I do believe you folks are giving way to much credit to their organization. They represent less than 10 percent of gun owners in the US, and their membership numbers have been rather stable for the last 20 or so years. Politicians are not afraid of the NRA they are afraid of the 60-70 million gun owners that the NRA does not represent.

Also the NRA may use propaganda and misinformation to their advantage, but they are also fed a whole diatribe of red meat by many of our liberal politicians. Just since Obama’s inauguration you have had his AG and Secretary of State both state that we need to reinstate the so called Assault Weapons ban. We also had Secretary of State Clinton this last week stating that the United States is willing to negotiate and back the UN gun treaty that has previously failed ratification by the Senate.

If you want to stop giving organizations like the NRA credibility, you need to stop giving them fuel by attacking the civil liberty their organization has vowed to protect.

2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“…you need to stop giving them fuel by attacking the civil liberty their organization has vowed to protect.”

The NRA promotes an absurdly broad view of the 2nd amendment. How long until their they start advocating for our “right” to possess rocket launchers or car bombs? After all, our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Give me a break.

The constitution was created in a time when government was overbearing and people needed to be protected from them. Car bombs and rocket launching wasnt part of the right to protect ones self. I cant see where the NRA promotes that type of thinking. They do have a right to voice an opinion just as any other organization does which is an other right gauranteed by the constitution.

How long until their they start advocating for our “right” to possess rocket launchers or car bombs?

That’s what I would like to know. They have taken it too far. They make it sound like you are un-American if you don’t have a gun. I am glad that I have the option to have guns for hunting, but I don’t feel like it is some duty of mine to own a handgun or an assault rifle.

I am not a member of the NRA because I don’t like the fact that an organization feels the need to negotiate my Constitutional right to gun ownership. I am way to the right of most NRA members.

With that said I would love for you to show me an example of where the NRA has said that it is Un-American not to own a firearm, or where they have said that it is the duty of American citizens to own a handgun or an assault rifle (which by the way very few Americans can actually own assault rifles).

I am no fan of the NRA, but they are reacting in kind to the very similar tactics of the extreme anti-gun folks. These anti folks have publically admitted that they have a plan of gradual erosion gun ownership rights and are more than willing to take little bites here and there that in and of themselves seem inocuous until the cumlulative impact is felt. They also do not shy away from the same type of media manipulation that is being cited here. Does not make it “right”, but it certainly does not mean that the NRA is some kind of unique organization that should be singled out for vilification. I see the same kinds of baloney being tossed about by extremists on both sides of issues like animal rights, abortion, illegal immigration, etc, etc, etc.

In the NRA’s publications they have this sensationalist paranoid stance that everyone needs to own a gun. They have sections in magazines about armed citizens shooting burglars and touting them as heroes. They also have obnoxious celebrities like Ted Nugent pitching their agenda.

I do not disagree with your comments about the NRA propaganda. But you still have not shown examples of where the NRA promotes the idea that it is Un-American ir you don’t own a firearm, or that it is your duty to own a handgun or assault weapon.

I would say that your opinion of the NRA is based off of pure misinformation of propaganda.

Wyo Native, I would say this propaganda implies the things I said. If you are looking for information where the exact words of it being your duty are mentioned, no I don’t have that and have not seen it written anywhere. I am reading between the lines.

“What is “absurdly broad” about saying that the public has a right to bear arms??”

The NRA’s position is–and I’m paraphrasing–the second amendment of the Constitution guarantees individual citizens the right to own, carry, flaunt, etc. “arms”. Essentially, you (individually) have the right to own and carry an “arm”. From a legal perspective, the difference between a handgun, shotgun, assault weapon, or rocket launcher all comes down to how you interpret the term “arm”.

Second amendment “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Under any reasonable definition, a rocket propelled grenade is an “arm.”

I am sure you already know this, but individuals can already own the “arms” you are describing. They just need to posses a Class III Firearms License.

You will also never see the NRA pursue ownership of the type of weapons you describe, because even the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in the DC – Heller case that “Strange and Unusual” weapons that were designed specifically for military use did not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Therefor their use could be limited or regulated significantly with legislation.

"The NRA promotes an absurdly broad view of the 2nd amendment. How long until their they start advocating for our “right” to possess rocket launchers or car bombs? After all, our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.”"

"Second amendment “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Under any reasonable definition, a rocket propelled grenade is an “arm.”"

Two different quotes, same person. I guess I'm not sure if we disagree or not!!! 🙂

JB,
Though I agree with you 99 percent of the time, that type of extremism is what puts us at odds with some other folks who sit on the dfence between supporting wolves, or not.

Most people are no more likely to buy grenade launchers because they have “a right” to, than I am as a hunter, to run out and slaughter a couple packs of wolves, or Obama is to abolish people owning firearms.

The point here is, the NRA, even in it’s broadest reaches, knows jack shit about conservation. Yet if we pay no attention to them, they will have some impact.

I sometimes wonder how humans consider the behaviour of some other humans. They should actually take lessons from a wolf pack. These wolves could teach many humans how to behave and not be selfish.. Fight for your live and your food, that is an incredible lesson. Don’t ask me to make any comments other than say, this is a big mistake and we should all learn that in a life time we all need each other, friends, family and WOLVES.

What I found incredibly amusing about the recent Supreme Court case was the departure from the “original meaning” of the words of the Constitution by such staunch advocates as Scalia, Roberts and Alito. Suddenly, contextual reading was ok..militia didn’t really mean what it meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution; it meant largely what the NRA and other gun rights advocates meant in today’s society.

NRA is very powerful in Washington. Just ask any Western Senator or Representative’s staff….Paranoia and lies seem to be the tools of choice for the NRA, and sadly, they seem to work out here.

Someone, someday, is going to have to explain to me how the myth of the cowboy, the rancher, the Winchester all continue to thrive in a modern, well educated society. I really, fundamentally don’t get it.

I don’t consider my comments extreme. The legalization of these types of weapons follows from a natural reading of the term “arm”. What was extreme was the Court’s shift in how it read the term “militia” (as described by Jim, above).

What is ironic to me is that the Court can read the term “militia” to mean “individual”, while at the same time holding that “arm” doesn’t refer to rocket launchers, car bombs, and the rest. I simply don’t understand the logic?

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Is there a different definition someplace?? Could you and/or Jim clue me in as to where and what it is??

Could it be that just maybe the court got one right and injected a bit of common sense in the decision??

Jim,

“Someone, someday, is going to have to explain to me how the myth of the cowboy, the rancher, the Winchester all continue to thrive in a modern, well educated society. I really, fundamentally don’t get it.”

When “city folk” were moving west …………………………….

Naaa, never mind, like has been said before “if I have to explain it, you wouldn’t understand”. Not from around here — are you!!

What a lot of people forget, the United States Militia act is still in effect, it has never been repealed and can still be applied if needed, and it says, all able bodied men between the age of 17-45 is indeed in the Militia and must provide their own arms, subsequent rulings by various courts have updated to state women are included as well.

In this last ruling by the supreme court, they ruled that the right is an individual right, subject to reasonable regulation. Reasonable regulation leads to believe, no rocket launchers or various other items covered under definition of Military Arms.

There is also another case pending before the court, they have agreed to hear, that will possibly change things again.

But, that said, I again don’t feel the NRA belongs in this issue concerning wolves and the delisting lawsuit.

Save Bears you are right on the money. “militia” as experenced by and described by the writers of the amendment consisted of private citizens bring their own horses, equipment and arms when called to muster. You had to own a gun to be able to serve in the militia. Anti-gun folks just like to play games with the word “militia” given that there is not much else to hang their hats on in the language.

When discussing the 2nd, there are quite a few more acts and laws that come into play than just the 2nd. To completely understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment, you need to understand the other acts that were tied to it…

Layton says: “1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.”

Mike Post says: “Save Bears you are right on the money. “militia” as experenced by and described by the writers of the amendment consisted of private citizens bring their own horses, equipment and arms when called to muster.”

So if the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow individuals to form a militia for military purposes, how does the Court justify restrictions against military arms? And remember: Roberts, Alito, and Scalia are supposed to be strict constructionists. Am I to believe that it is the opinion of these strict constructionists that the authors of the second amendment intended that citizens be able to arm themselves to form military groups (i.e. militas) so long as they did not bring military arms?

you are using the same old tired argument that the Brady group has tried again and again in court, which has been struck down. There are other rules, regulations and laws in place in this issue.

But at its heart, based on the time these amendments were wrote, it was fully understood that an “arm” was a “firearm” which includes pistol or rifle..

There has never been a ruling that would expand the definition of “Arms” over the original intent of the amendment.

And really, I don’t have to draw my own conclusion as the Supreme court has drawn that conclusion for me, and they stated, I have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right is an individual right..

And really the right to keep and bear arms, has very little to do, with the propaganda play the NRA is doing with the delisting lawsuit…

If people would just read the full text of the militia act, the definition of “arm” was spelled out in this document that goes hand in hand with the 2nd. Even when the constitution was wrote, it was illegal for an individual to own a cannon…

Other laws, rules, and regulations don’t mean jack shit–if you’ll pardon my “French”. They are only valid insomuch as they do not conflict with the Constitution (that’s the point in having a constitution).

FYI: I don’t have a problem with people owning guns (currently I own two). What irks me is the lack of logic: somehow militia means individual, while arm refers only to rifles and handguns? Give me a break. What bothers me more is the NRAs insistence that anyone be able to carry their gun anywhere anytime.

I guess it comes down to interpretation, and the Supreme court has their interpretation, which of course is the law of the land, that is not open for appeal..

If you read the “Militia” act, it does mean individual, as the individuals of this country were in fact the Militia, and the Supreme court said they agree, the people are the militia and the militia are the people…and that means individuals..

And I know, round and round we go…

But this is still not a 2nd issue, it is a group trying to join a case they have no business in…

Yes, it looks like you needn’t worry about anyone taking your guns in your lifetime (or mine). So why all the fuss?

BTW: I stick by the only two claims I’ve made:
(1) The NRA’s position on firearms is absurdly broad.
(2) The Court’s position on the second amendment is hypocritical; it interprets militia/people to mean individuals while interpreting arms to refer to non-military weapons.

I actually agree, the NRA position is very broad, which is why I am no longer a member of that organization.

Only time will tell if the Court’s position on the 2nd is hypocritical..

Of course any weapon can be used in a military sense, I spent a lot of time in the military shooting a Winchester Model 70 in 30-06 caliber, of course there are a whole group of weapons that have no other use than war, the weapon I used in the military, actually is just about the same as I use for hunting, Model 70 Winchester, the only difference is mine is a .270..

It is quite obvious, we do have different interpretations, and I am sure we will keep going round and round..

Calendar

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."